This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
1. Consult Raedeke v. Gibraltar Savings & Loan Assn., 10 Cal. 3d 665, 517 P.2d 1157, 111 Cal. Rptr. 693 (1974).3
2. Fisher and Brill are partners and together operate a flower shop. Fisher decides to withdraw from the business and set up a shop of his own in a nearby town. The landlord who owns the flower shop in which Fisher and Brill are currently doing business (Fried) agrees to release Fisher from any remaining obligations under the lease, and states that he will be "perfectly satisfied" if Brill assumes sole responsibility for it. Fisher pays Fried nothing for his release. Subsequently, after Fisher has moved away and Brill has defaulted on his rent payments, Fried recovers judgment against both Fisher and Brill for breach of contract. Fisher appeals from the judgment, invoking Section 90 of the Restatement. Result? See Fried v. Fisher, 328 Pa. St. 497, 196 A. 39, 115 A.L.R. 147 (1938). Suppose that Fisher has been hugely successful in his new business. Should this affect the outcome?
June 02, 2014
220.127.116.11 Notes - Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Century Realty Co.
Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at email@example.com. Thank you.